4.7 Article

Cardiac dysfunction in the trastuzumab clinical trials experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 1215-1221

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.5.1215

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. This study sought to estimate cardiac dysfunction (CD) risk for patients receiving trastuzurnab; to characterize observed CD by severity, treatment, and clinical outcome; to assess effects of baseline clinical risk factors on CD; and to assess effects of cumulative doses of anthracyclines and trostuzumab on CD. Patients and Methods A retrospective review of records for patients enrolled onto any of seven phase II and III trastuzumob clinical trials was performed. Predefined criteria were used for the diagnosis, and the New York Heart Association functional classification system was used to document CD severity. Product-limit estimates were used to summarize the cumulative anthracycline and trastuzurnab doses at the time of CD onset. Results: Patients treated with trastuzurnab were found to be at an increased risk for CD. The incidence was greatest in patients receiving concomitant trastuzumab and anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (27%). The risk was substantially lower in patients receiving paclitaxel and trastuzumab (13%) or trastuzurnab alone (3% to 7%); however, most of these patients had received prior anthracycline therapy. CD was noted in 8% of patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and 1% receiving paclitaxel alone. Most trastuzurnab-treated patients developing CD were symptomatic (75%), and most improved with standard treatment for congestive heart failure (79%). Conclusion: Trastuzumab is associated with an increased risk of CD, which is greatest in patients receiving concurrent anthracyclines. In most patients with metastatic breast cancer, the risk of CD can be justified given the improvement in overall survival previously reported with trastuzumab. (C) 2002 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据